Smt. Vimal Devi Suhane vs Trust Mandir Shri Thakur Radhavallab Ji Mahraj

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33075
1 RP-1934-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 1934 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030249922026
SMT. VIMAL DEVI SUHANE AND OTHERS
Versus
TRUST MANDIR SHRI THAKUR RADHAVALLAB JI MAHRAJ AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri H.K. Shukla - Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 to 12.
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
The present Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as "CPC"]
has been filed seeking review and recall of the order dated 11/8/2026 passed
by this court in M.P. No. 4541 of 2025 whereby, the petition preferred by
the petitioner/review petitioner challenging the order dated 27/8/2024 passed
by the First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Datia [hereinafter referred to as
"Trial Court"], in civil suit No. 32 A/2024 rejecting the application filed by
the review petitioners under order 39 rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of
CPC seeking grant of temporary injunction was dismissed.
2. In M.P. No. 4541 of 2025, challenge was also made to the order
dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Second District Judge, Datia [hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 10/30/2026
5:08:33 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33075
2 RP-1934-2026
referred to as "Lower Appellate Court"] in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal

No.20/2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Order 43
Rule 1 of the CPC against the order dated 27.08.2024 was dismissed. The
said order dated 11.08.2025 was also affirmed by this Court in M.P. No.
4541 of 2025.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that along
with written arguments, certain judgments/case laws were also filed in M.P.
No. 4541 of 2025 for consideration before this Court. It is the case of the
review petitioner that the said judgments/case laws, though have been
mentioned by this court in the impugned order dated 11/8/2026, however,
the same have not been explicitly considered and discussed. Accordingly, he
submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record arising out of
such non-consideration.
4. Review is also sought on the ground that while passing the order
dated 11/8/2026 in MP No. 4541 of 2025, this court has placed reliance
upon the judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Wander Limited and
another v. Antox India Private Limited 1990 (supplementary) SCC 727 and
the judgment in the case of Skyline Education Institute (India Private
Limited) v. S.L. Vaswani, 2010 (2) SCC 142 but, the said judgments were
neither cited by the review petitioner or the respondents and the court on its
own discretion had relied upon by the said judgments without there being
any knowledge to the review petitioner in the said regard. He further submits
that before the Lower Appellate Court, an application under Order 41 Rule
27 of CPC was filed by the review petitioner which was allowed. However,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 10/30/2026
5:08:33 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33075
3 RP-1934-2026
the Lower Appellate Court, instead of remanding the case to the Trial Court

for hearing afresh along with the additional evidence, itself decided the same
on merits. This aspect has also not been appropriately considered by this
court while passing the order dated 11/8/2026 in MP No. 4541 of 2025 and
on these grounds, the order impugned deserves to be reviewed and recalled
and MP No.4541 of 2025 deserves to be reheard on merits.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the
question of admission.
6. It is noteworthy that the review petitioner approached this court in
MP No. 4541 of 2025 by filing a miscellaneous petition under article 227 of
the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Trial Court as
well as the Lower Appellate Court, wherein, the prayer for grant of
temporary injunction was concurrently declined and the possession of the
petitioner was not found to be established concurrently by both the courts
below. This court considered the said petition within the scope and
parameters as laid down under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
by assigning reasons, declined to interfere in the orders impugned therein.
The judgments filed by the review petitioner were taken note of and their
applicability was considered in Para-19 of the order under review. Similarly,
the ground of allowing of application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and
the further procedure adopted by the Lower Appellate Court was also
considered in para -13 of the order. It is noteworthy that under the garb of
review, there cannot be rehearing of the matter and review petition is
required to be considered within the scope and parameters of review as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 10/30/2026
5:08:33 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33075
4 RP-1934-2026
provided in law and as interpreted in the various judgments by this court as

well as the Apex Court.
7. The submission made by the Review petitioner is that non-explicit
discussion of the case laws cited in the order under review is a ground for
review and recall of order under review. It is noteworthy that similar issue
has been recently considered by the Apex Court in the case of A. S.
Raghavendra v. Messrs. Bharti Airtel Limited, Review Petition Civil No.
1425 of 2024 decided on 24.09.2024 wherein the Apex court has held as
under:-
"3. A perusal of the petition would bring to light that
the Petitioner feels aggrieved on various counts, inter
alia, that – this Court proceeded on the basis of
‘misunderstood fact’; facts have not been
‘observed/reasoned’; the Single Judge and the Division
Bench at the High Court had rightly decided the case;
judgments cited by him have not been
considered/followed by this Court; ‘grave injustice’ has
been caused; the Respondent took varied stands at
varied points of time before this Court, the Division
Bench and Single Judge of the High Court and the
Labour Court; the Respondent altered the electronic
record; and, this Court has erred in and mis-appreciated
the law etcetera.
4. Relying on a host of precedents, it was held in Sanjay
Kumar Agarwal (supra) as under:
"16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if
there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face
of the record.
16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final,
and departure from that principle is justified only
when circumstances of a substantial and
compelling character make it necessary to do so.
16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to
be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly
be said to be an error apparent on the face of
record justifying the court to exercise its power of
review.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 10/30/2026
5:08:33 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33075
5 RP-1934-2026
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47
Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be “reheard and corrected”.
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and
cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the
questions which have already been addressed and
decided.
16.7. An error on the face of record must be such
an error which, mere looking at the record should
strike and it should not require any long-drawn
process of reasoning on the points where there
may conceivably be two opinions.
16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent
decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench
by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for
review."
5. What the Petitioner seems to have forgotten is that a
review petition is not, by any stretch, a re-hearing of the
matter. This Court has considered all material aspects
before rendering the Judgment dated 02.04.2024. In the
guise of a review, this Court cannot act/sit in appeal
over the judgment of which review is sought. Moreover,
when the Petitioner asserts that this Court mis-applied
the law, the same would per se entail a re-examination
on merits, as the law and facts of a cited case would
have to be minutely studied to hold whether the same
would apply in the peculiar facts of the extant case.
Such exercise is clearly unwarranted herein and even
otherwise, would fall well beyond the realm of a
review. Findings on merits cannot be assailed in the
jurisdictional confines of a review in the manner as is
sought to be done by the Petitioner herein.
6. Day in and day out, this Court decides cases one way
or the other. Apart from the small category of matters
which are settled/amicably resolved, each case produces
a winning party and a losing party. That is the nature of
the adversarial system of adjudication in vogue in our
nation. Merely because a party harbours a belief/notion
that injustice was meted out to it, is not, by itself,
sufficient reason for this Court to re-look at the
underlying lis."

[Emphasis Supplied]
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 10/30/2026
5:08:33 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33075
6 RP-1934-2026
8. A bare perusal of the proposition of law as laid down by the Apex

Court in A. S. Raghavendra (supra) reveals that the contention so advanced
by the learned counsel by the review petitioner is not a ground for review of
an order as the same amounts to re-hearing of matter under the garb of
review, which is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction.
9. In view of the above considerations, there being no error apparent
on face of record in the order dated 11/8/2026 passed by this court in M.P.
No. 4541 of 2025, case of review and recall of the same is therefore not
made out.
10. Accordingly, admission is declined. The present review petition
fails and is therefore, dismissed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
ar

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 10/30/2026
5:08:33 AM